Exactly. I have been lucky in that I have been able to pick and choose among positions. I may have damaged my reputation with some companies by posting, and I may have harder time finding work now.
-r On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:46:41 +0000, Will Crawford <billcrawford1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 December 2011 11:42, Smylers <smyl...@stripey.com> wrote: >> Rudolf Lippan writes: > [...] >>> 3) That NET-A-PORTER was aware that I let another opportunity go based >>> on my understanding that my employment was pending a 'final >>> signature'. > [...] >>> 4) That as a condition of final sign off [...] I agreed to this. > [...] >>> 5) That NET-A-PORTER decided to withdraw the position at this point > >> That's really unfortunate for you, especially since you'd turned down >> other work. It certainly sucks from your side. >> >> But I'm struggling to extrapolate from that into behaviour by >> Net-a-Porter that I need to beware of. > > He may well have had the choice of whether to wait for this "sign off" > instead of taking another role. But if they were aware of his having > another offer, took their time, let him think the role was "in the > bag" and then yanked it after it was too late for the other position, > and knew this to be the case, they've very much left him in the lurch. > >> It sounds like they said they >> hoped to do something but it hadn't been approved yet, then later turned >> out that approval wasn't granted. That's unfortunate, and frustrating, >> certainly, but it doesn't seem immoral. > > It's basically a sort of "bait and switch". You may not consider it > "immoral", he does, and at the end of the day it's a betrayal of a > trust which - apparently - they knowingly asked for and accepted. > Hence the warning to the rest of us that this might happen. It's a > salutory lesson, even if you think it's perfectly "moral", that we > should all watch out for the possible effects of "economics", and to > censure him for providing that warning to all of us is like telling > the green cross code guy "hey, people get run over if they mess with > cars".